RESULTS No association was found between these SNPs or their associated haplotypes and all PC subtypes except that haplotype 2 (A-f-b) with Cdx2 A, Fok1 f, and Bsm1 b alleles and haplotype 3 (A-F-B) with Cdx2 A, Fok1 F and Bsm1 B alleles compared to the most common haplotype (A-F-b), were associated with reduced risk of aggressive PC (high stage or Gleason sum 7; P = 0.02), both with two alleles suspected of being low risk. Carriers of the variant Cdx2 A allele who were deficient in plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (15 ng/ml) compared to non-carriers with normal 25-hydroxyvitamin D, had a lower risk of total and poorly differentiated PCs (Gleason sum 7) (P for interaction = 0.02 and 0.04, respectively). Plasma 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D deficiency (26 pg/ml) was associated with a threefold risk of poorly differentiated PC (P for interaction = 0.01) when comparing carriers of the Cdx2 A allele to non-carriers with normal 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D.

CONCLUSION In this population of men, none of the VDR polymorphisms studied was associated with susceptibility to PC.

Carriers of the variant Cdx2 A allele with low plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D may experience a reduction in risk of total and poorly differentiated prostate cancers compared to non-carriers with adequate 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

CONCLUSION: The findings of this large prospective study do not support the hypothesis that vitamin D is associated with decreased risk of prostate cancer; indeed, higher circulating 25(OH)D concentrations may be associated with increased risk of aggressive disease.

In summary, results from this large prospective study of men who underwent standardized prostate cancer screening in the context of a screening trial do not support the hypothesis that higher serum vitamin D status is associated with decreased risk of prostate cancer. The study showed no association of vitamin D level with nonaggressive disease; however, it raises the possibility that higher vitamin D level may be associated with increased risks for aggressive disease, although a clear monotonic dose-response relationship was lacking. Along with recent reports of adverse associations for higher vitamin D status and risk of pancreatic (32) and esophageal (33,34) cancer, caution should be taken in recommending high doses of vitamin D or sunlight exposure to the general public for prostate cancer prevention. Future analyses are warranted to confirm these results and to further clarify the effects of vitamin D on aggressive prostate cancer.